Jump to content

Talk:Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

More precise title

On the basis of an article like United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, probably the most clear parallel to this event, the title of this article should be moved to the more precise Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus vel sim. per WP:PRECISE. Dylanvt (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Tennisist123 removed this post from the Talk Page, which is a major violation of Wikipedia policy, and frankly disgusting behavior. I've readded it now. Furthermore, Israel has officially admitted to the bombing. Dylanvt (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have apologised to Dylanvt separately and shared how I had mis-understood the Talk page with him. I am still learning all of the (very numerous) etiquette rules. My account is clearly relatively new and would appreciate some WP:AGF. I want to have a discussion on this topic but thought it had moved to the editing description fields.
Can you please share the source that Israel has officially admitted to the bombing? I see that the BBC and NYT are still running with 'Iran accuses.' Tennisist123 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The NYT source includes Israel's justification for why they did it: "Israeli officials said the building was an outpost of the Revolutionary Guards, making it a legitimate military target."
While this NYT article states: "Israel’s bombing of an Iranian Embassy building in Damascus, which killed senior Iranian military and intelligence officials, is a major escalation of what has long been a simmering undeclared war between Israel and Iran", not saying anything about "claims" or "allegations". Dylanvt (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Your first point is still not sufficient in my opinion. Just because Israel has said something could be bombed, does not mean that they have bombed it. Motive alone is insufficient.
Your second point is a link to a news analysis article sharing the personal analysis of a single expert, not editorial content. If you want to change the title to 'Steven Erlanger accused Israel,' I am supportive. Here is an article explaining what News Analysis is. "When an article is primarily analytical, a label of "News Analysis" appears near the top of the article... They are not editorials." https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/college/faculty/coll_mono_know.html Tennisist123 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The AP's newest headline on the topic today still leads with Iran blames. You have yet to provide evidence while counter evidence continues to mount. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts @Dylanvt:. https://apnews.com/article/iran-syria-israel-hezbollah-gaza-damascus-f7a1af3a9fc67de1962d4f1589d7e9f0 Tennisist123 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, this is an alleged Israeli bombing. The title of the article should not be defining facts that have yet to be established.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please make sure to voice this in the move request below. @Monopoly31121993(2) Tennisist123 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Deathcount

We rely on two sources heavily, the Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-bombs-iran-embassy-syria-iranian-commanders-among-dead-2024-04-01/ and Barrons https://www.barrons.com/news/iran-media-say-death-toll-rises-to-13-in-syria-consulate-strike-206cdb18

They disagree on death count; Reuters at 8 and Barrons at 13. Opening the discussion so we ensure the article is consistent throughout. Tennisist123 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove the word "suspected", but it is clear that it was an Israeli attack and there is no dispute about it. Also, what you're are changing here is the initial description of the article since it was created. Its crystal clear that its done by Israel, especially when countries are condemning this act against Israel, its clear what's happening here. Farnaj57 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that this was an Israeli strike, but that is not the standard we are arguing against. If you can send me a tier 1 source that has directly reported that Israel did it, not that Iran claims Israel did it, I will happily support your edits to remove 'suspected' and 'accused' and make the article more direct. Unfortunately, as it stands now, we do not have the evidence to make those claims ourselves. Over the next few days, I am sure we will get these articles and can make the edits then. Is this agreeable to you? Tennisist123 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The is no problem with the word "suspected", I thought you were saying that we don't have an exact number of deaths. If the problem is the death count, then I'll add a "according to the Iranian media", deleting the part "Iran holds Israel and the United States of America responsible for the attack" since I'm mentioning the Iranian media, and leave the rest as it is, agree? Farnaj57 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry I misunderstood your message and yes, it looks like we were speaking at cross purposes. I do not have a strong opinion either way on the number of deaths, was just flagging originally that we had two different numbers referenced in the article. Happy to do with 13 with a disclaimer that Iran media reported it. My strong opinions were about assigning blame beyond the qualifier of 'Iran accuses' as that is all I can find well supported in the press.
What does the discussion about the deaths have to do with 'Iran holds...' clause. I do not see how these are linked and I think this is independently important as the language opens up the possibility that Iran's response could be against either US or Israel. We won't know until something happens though. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Its all good, and about that part: its already mentioned in the "Domestic Reactions" section, there is no need for it to be mentioned twice. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok take a look at the tweaks I just put in now and let me know if you are happy? Tennisist123 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your edits have misspellings, what is "Iraian"? and the part mentioned twice has not been deleted, let me do it my friend, if there is a discussion, raise it here before changing. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the typo. I must disagree with your argument that the statement 'Iran holds Israel and US responsible' is redundant and therefore needs to be removed. The summary section is intended the summarise the key information of the article below it. So in some sense it is all redundant. The conversation we should be having is whether that information is important enough to make it into the summary. I believe it is as it is the closest we can get to blaming Israel in the beginning (with the sources we have today) and sets the stage appropriately to connect this event with whatever will happen next. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm saying remove it because its partly mentioned down there. Ok look, what if I move that part entirely to the "Domestic Reactions" section? becuase it is indeed a reaction, it blongs to that section, not at the very top. In this way, it is not completely removed and will exist. Good now? btw, you removed the part "suspected" again lol Farnaj57 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah which suspected do you mean?! Clearly I keep missing it as I am not intended to edit that. The previous edit I did was to add your preferred language around Iranian media (even if I typed too fast and spelled it wrong). Tennisist123 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing, the article's title was renamed to "2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus" and it seems that it was definitely the work of Israel, now there is no way to use the word "suspected", forget it. You didn't answer my qustion? Farnaj57 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes I saw that was done but I am not sure the press has crossed the precipice to make that change and have asked Dylanvt to share the new press that jsutified that edit.
Why do you not think that Iran holding Israel and US responsible is not one of the key takeaways from the event that is worth including in the summary? To me it is so I want to hear your reasoning. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It is a key takeaway, I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying here... I never said remove that part entierly, I've said its better to move it into the "Reaction" section. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Let me summarise what I understand your position to be so you can confirm or clarify?
Currently we say 'Iran holds Israel and US responsible twice. Once in the summary and once in the reaction section. We should only say this once in the reaction section."
If that understand is right I disagree and argue that we do say it twice and we should continue to say it twice as it is an important enough take-away to be included in the summary in addition to it's normal place in Reactions. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and I also disagree. That part was the same from the beginning until you changed it. I say that sending a letter by Iran to the UN is a much bigger deal than accusing America/Israel, which Iran always does, does this justify mentioning it twice? Definitely not. What's the solution here then? Farnaj57 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The solution is easy; we can combine them. Take a look at this sentence below here.
"Iran holds Israel and the United States of America responsible for the attack and has sent a letter to the UN Security Council saying it 'reserves its legitimate and inherent right to respond decisively'.
Tennisist123 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
If you like this compromise, why don't you add it to prevent my fat fingers from getting the best of us with another typo.
Tennisist123 (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You know what, it doesn't even matter, people are rapidly changing stuff while we're talking here, so what's the point lol. Let's finish this discussion and get over it. Farnaj57 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed lol. At least we tried :)
Tennisist123 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, the national condemnations are only evidence of the fact that the nation blames Israel, we cannot make the logical leap ourselves on wikipedia. We must wait for it to be reported.Tennisist123 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Tennisist123 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR. It's possible that "airstrike" is more precise but there isn't consensus to make that change; a second RM might be useful if people want that. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus – I think the article being retitled to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus by User:Dylanvt is not appropriate. I suggest moving it back to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus:

  • Is not a concise title (WP:Concise)
  • If you look at List of attacks on diplomatic missions you'll see that a good portion of articles are named by a year, mission attacked, bombing, location of mission or year, attack, mission attacked, location of mission format. Very rarely is the assailant named in the title like it is in United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
  • Israel is suspected/accused of the attack. The lede doesn't even mention this like 2023 Damascus airstrike. Currently, it only mentions Iran blaming the United States (and Israel in the infobox). So I fail to see how this is WP:Precise. Huge number of news sources are still running with Iran accuses. I can also see this becoming an issue later down the line and used for justification in future contentious titling arguments. It would be best to avoid that.

I suggest we move it back to the original title of 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus or 2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to maintain a sense of consistency and accuracy. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support: As it appears, the perpetrator is not mentioned in the titles of articles regarding attacks on embassies. For the sake of both consistency and conciseness, naming the perpetrator in the title itself is not useful. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The example of United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was literally presented in the opening statement. It is in fact the case that state on state attacks normally do include the perpetrator. Titles without perpetrators are often a function unclear, non-state origins. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
That article is the only example which is presented. There is also the 2024 raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador which doesn't mention that the perpetrator is Ecuador in the title. In any case, why should specifically state-on-state attacks mention the perpetrator in the title, while those perpetrated by non-state actors aren't mentioned? In addition, when attacks are state-on-state but do not focus on the attack of a diplomatic mission, then the perpetrator isn't usually mentioned (for example: Bombing of Dresden, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Raid on the Medway). ―Howard • 🌽33 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I agree. Both titles work for this. I think it's important to include the fact that the airstrike is Israeli, since removing it kind of seems to remove that link between the airstrike and the country itself. Werkwer (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    The issue with Ecrusized's title is it goes back to considering this a consulate and not an embassy. This was an embassy. If someone bombed a truck at an embassy you'd still say they bombed the embassy - having a building part of the embassy compound get blown up is still the embassy. Damascus is the capital and any degradation of such is not reasonable or informative. Amyipdev (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with your statement, however I disagree that it is a degradation to the capital itself. It was a mere mistake on my behalf for not looking into the technical language. Werkwer (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is widely accepted (and actually undisputed) that the bombing was by Israel. No need to remove or change anything.
Stephan rostie (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above and because the title '"2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"' suggests that it was an Iranian attack against whatever consulate in Damascus instead of an attack against the Iran embassy by Israel, as acknowledged by all major international media and Israel itself. MaeseLeon (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Diffrent suggestion: move to Assassination of Mohammad Reza Zahedi. The main buildind of the embassy was not hort, so bombing of the embassy is missliding. useing consulate isnt beter, since thet makes it seem like it was in a separate are from the embassy and not the next buildind over. +, Zahedi and the rest were not diplomets, and there the center of the story.Pen Man (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Crossing out the comment due to ARBECR restrictions in force on this page. — kashmīrī TALK 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    Only in very dystopian, post-international law speak can demolishing the entire consular services wing of an embassy be whittled down into a mere "assassination" - aside from being a clear POV framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone. Also the "fact" that Israel carried out the bombing, although widely alleged, is not established by evidence provided by Iran or Syria. The title should not be including an alleged perpetrator.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    NYT, Axios, WP, AP - all finger Israel in own voice. Who's denying it? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

    Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone.

    So what? We already know the consulate isn't performing the attack, because that would be a "consular airstrike".
    The problem is that "consulate Iranian airstrike" is grammatically forbidden, or at least unnatural. Thus "Iranian consulate airstrike" becomes idiomatic for both "an airstrike on an Iranian consulate" and "an Iranian airstrike on a consulate". Context (including that "buildings...can't attack anyone") is insufficient to distinguish between the two.
    Moreover: Iran is famous (in English-language sources, anyways) for attacking a diplomatic facility. Context-dependence here effects the incorrect interpretation. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: My third bullet point was about the article at that exact time point in time. New information and statements have been made since then. Clearly Israel has made more comments about the strike. Obviously, the article on Wikipedia has changed as well.
My main point was about how it should follow the precedent of other articles as I mentioned in the second bullet point. See 2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut as another use case example. See also, World Central Kitchen drone strikes. That attack happened on the same day as this airstrike (1 April 2024). Note how the title doesn't mean WCK conducted the drone strike. Additionally how the article isn't titled something like Israeli drone strike of World Central Kitchen.
I just know leaving the current title will led it to be justification in future contentious titling arguments, where things are not as easy to discern. This is why I suggest going with a simple title that follows previous naming examples.
Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As noted above, it is exceptionally rare for embassies to be directly targeted by state actors, so the emphasis here is arguably warranted. I believe the last such event was the United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which does indeed frame it in the same format. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the majority of sources listed. Also, while Consular Sections at embassies are often called consulates, the bombed building was still part of the Iranian Embassy complex. The perpetrator has also been named in multiple sources and itself has not denied involvement. Finally, I'm unconvinced that "airstrike" would be better than bombing. — kashmīrī TALK 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm ok with bombing as well. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose: being 'concise' does not mean removing pertinent information. Sometimes a title is longer than 6 words but still concise. Orangesclub Crossing out the comment due to ARBECR restrictions in force on this page. (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Should follow the WP:Concise and general pattern. Additionally, the airstrike being carried out by Israel is a claim by Iran, and Wikipedia is not in place of pushing claims by one side without actual verification, there is a lot of misinformation, propaganda, and misleading information in relation to Israel and Iran. The title cannot make such a claim in wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    In CNN ref 1 "Four unnamed Israeli officials acknowledged that Israel carried out the attack” and that "the US’ assessment was that Israel had carried out the airstrike.” Therefore, I’d say it’s more than a 'claim' by just Iran that the bombing was carried out by Israel. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    This needs to be looked at in the wider context of reporting on the issues in the area and that not all previously accepted reliable journalism is actually reliable. Also the current sources in the article state "claimed by Iran".
    This is not my OR this is other sources stating the unreliable nature of media reporting Vox, Africa News, NPR
    PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose: I agree that the current title could be more concise, but the suggested title may be misleading, not only it does not clearly state the perpetrator, but who the victim is also not abundantly clear. While some iconic events like The Iranian Embassy siege don't need neither the year nor the perpetrators in the title, this event is more similar to this article: February 2024 United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria which clearly states the year, the perpetrator and the targeted areas.
Additionally, addressing some people's claims that Israel may not have been the perpetrator, IDF themselves took the credit for this airstrike [1][2]. LatekVon (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Non-EC user
  • Oppose: in bombings by individuals or small relatively unknown groups, WP:COMMON, referring to the event in a conversation, would be something like “when the embassy got bombed (by a terrorist group)”, but when it’s a well-known actor like Hamas or Israel, we say “when Israel bombed the Iranian Embassy”. Just as we do for the October 7 attacks. The event’s importance is not that the building “got bombed” but rather that Israel bombed an Iranian Embassy.Keizers (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose alternative, the building was part of the Iranian Embassy, not a standalone consulate. — kashmīrī TALK 08:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose/propose alternative: "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus" is misleading, as it suggests that Iran performed the airstrike. "2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus" is insufficiently concise and uses the wrong preposition: a better title would be "2024 airstrike on the Iranian Damascus consulate". Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Well, the current title is pretty clear who did the bombing. I think the proposed one is too ambiguous and you don't know if it was Israel or ISIS or the FSA from just the title alone. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Support change , I mean guys there is a really big mistake here in understanding! The building is not the embassy building! It's a building next to the embassy building, I mean just look at the pictures, you can see the fence of the embassy does not include the bombed building but encloses the embassy compound, so the building is just next to it but not part of the embassy. Also consulates are always in different cities to the location of the embassy building! If Italy has an embassy in Cairo it would have a consulate in Alexandria but Italy wouldn't have a consulate in Cairo. So this is a big mistake. Titlt should be: 2024 Israeli strike of Iranian building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. I know the name sounds bad but it's accurate. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Revert to status quo. It's possible there are better titles than "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus", but the most important aspect is whether we refer to it as a consulate or an embassy, as that is the part that could result in us violating WP:NPOV. Reliable sources consistently refer to this as an airstrike on the consulate; searching for "Airstrike Damascus", of the first ten results:
    1. Sky News; "Embassy" - "suspected Israeli airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria."
    2. SBS; "near Iran's Embassy" - "attack near Iran's Embassy in Damascus, assumed to be by Israel"
    3. Al Jazeera; "consulate" - "Israeli fighter jets fired missiles at the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus earlier this week"
    4. CNN; "consulate" - "The airstrike destroyed the consulate building in the capital Damascus" "The consulate building, which includes the ambassador’s residence and is located next to the Iranian Embassy, is considered sovereign Iranian territory. "
    5. AP; "consulate" - "An Israeli airstrike that demolished Iran’s consulate in Syria"
    6. Iran International; "embassy" - "The European Union on Wednesday called for restraint after an airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus killed seven Revolutionary Guards."
    7. ABC; "consulate" - "after a suspected Israeli air strike on Iran's consulate"
    8. The Guardian; "consulate" - "Israeli war planes destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus"
    9. Reuters; "consulate" or "embassy compound" - "at its embassy compound in Damascus", "which destroyed a consular building adjacent to the main embassy complex"
    10. VOA; "consulate" - "that destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria"
  • Six sources use "consulate", two use "embassy" including one whose reliability is unclear, and the other two use other terminology; it would be inappropriate for us to do differently. BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Consulate is a name traditionally used for the offices occupied by an embassy's consular section; however, those offices are still a part of the embassy. — kashmīrī TALK 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    It's more complicated than that - but the only thing that is relevant here is that reliable sources consider "consulate" more accurate, and I don't see any bases for us to reject their assessment. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Sources repeat it one after another; usually after agency reports; that doesn't mean we should blindly copy them when incorrect and when we have plenty of correct sources. — kashmīrī TALK 09:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Diplomatic and consular premises: UN [3]
    Consular Section: Kazakhstan MFA [4], South African MFA [5], Iran MFA [6] (they know best what was located there)
    Embassy: The Atlantic Council [7], The Telegraph [8], TRT [9], RFE [10] (also consulate), Bloomberg [11], DW [12] and many others. Your claim that only two sources use "embassy" is plainly incorrect. — kashmīrī TALK 09:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    My claim is that of a relatively random sample of ten articles about this incident, only two used "embassy". Without knowing your methodology, we have no way of knowing whether your sources are a representative sample - what was your methodology?
    Further, reviewing your sources, they don't say what you claim they say:
    1. The Atlantic Council - "embassy annex"
    2. The Telegraph - "consular building" and "embassy"
    3. TRT - "embassy", but considered unreliable for this topic at WP:RSP
    4. RFE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per WP:HEADLINES)
    5. Bloomberg - "embassy"
    6. DE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per WP:HEADLINES)
    BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    The consular mission in a capital is an embassy. An embassy provides consular services, which means it can have a dedicated consular wing/building that can be referred to as a 'consulate', but is still part of the embassy compound. The efforts by some media outlets to label this as a strike on a 'consulate' instead of the embassy is quite clearly an attempt to diminish what is an egregious violation of the Vienna convention on diplomatic missions, and this sidestepping language is a disservice to their readers, as it would be to ours were it replicated here. Calling this a strike on an embassy is just calling a duck a duck; replacing this with 'consulate' is shenanigans. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    I couldn't express it better. — kashmīrī TALK 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    It's not our place to decide that reliable sources are incorrect; we don't WP:RGW. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    This falls into the category of WP:COMMONSENSE. Capitals have embassies; other cities have consulates. That a handful of sources seem to be confused about this is neither here nor there. No need to pander. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, that's the rough idea. Granted, sometimes (albeit very rarely) embassies are not located in the capital city, or consular sections are located in another part of the city than the main embassy complex, or there are only honorary consulates but no embassy in the country. But a typical setup, and one in place in the Iran/Syria instance, is the one you described. — kashmīrī TALK 11:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose to provide greater clarity as to who caused the attack. The proposed title is less clear and given the unfortunately short attention spans of many would cause confusion or even misattribution of the attacks. Amyipdev (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Not Extended Confirmed
Oppose It's almost beyond doubt who and what the perpetrators and targets are respectively. --Masssly (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wouldn't say "almost". It's extremely clear who the perpetrators and targets are. Amyipdev (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose. I was looking for this article, and didn't know its title, so I searched "2024 Israeli" and it showed up. The current title is much more natural than the opening proposal (or NasssaNser's alternate proposal). Concision shouldn't come at the cost of making the article harder to find. Also, I suggest creating a redirect at "2024 Israeli strike on[...]", so that (equally natural) partial query gets autocompleted too. Also agree with kashmiri's reasoning above on "embassy" > "consulate". DFlhb (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Arab world, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the proposed title is potentially misleading, as if Iran has bombed itself. The suggested change of "embassy" to "consulate" is a bit of an obfuscation; the consular building was part of the embassy compound, so the present title is correct. See for example: Debris is cleared away after an Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy compound in Damascus, Syria, on Monday. (Ravid, Barak (1 April 2024). "U.S. tells Iran it "had no involvement" in Israel strike". Axios.) The only worthwhile change would be to remove "2024" as no prior strike on the embassy has occurred. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is clear and sound. Cfls (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Assuming that current info on the page is correct (i.e. an Israeli airstrike destroyed the Iranian consulate annex building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus) the building was not Iranian embassy. Hence the title is misleading and should be changed as suggested or to something else. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Hello User:Mike Selinker. Thanks for your decision above. Could you please revisit it a bit as it seems to have a few issues. Firstly, it's a consulate and not embassy. Second, there are just allegation that it was done by Israel and we are stating it as a fact in the article's name. Please let me know if I should write it in some other place (and please feel free to move/update/delete my comment) but I'd appreciate your assistance here. Thank you. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Structure wording better for near future changes

The Aftermath section currently states:

The United States is anticipating a significant Iranian attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8–12.

I would ask that this be changed to make it easier to keep the structure of the sentence when conditions change. This type of present-tense wording does not work well in my view in the encyclopedic format. Instead, something like this could be written:

Initial U.S. intelligence anticipated a significant attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8-12.

This would allow for later expansion of the paragraph as events develop. For instance, if Iran were to attack the Knesset building on April 10, the section could expand to:

Initial U.S. intelligence anticipated a significant attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8-12. On April 10, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched airstrikes against the Knesset building...

I see this change as semi-minor; I would've made it myself but I don't yet have extended-confirmation privileges. Amyipdev (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Amyipdev (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Excessive reactions

Does this article really need to include so many reactions of uninvolved countries? I would suggest removing all countries except Israel, Iran and Syria from domestics, and US, Russia and China from internationals. Ecrusized (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2024

In Background, change "Syria is crucial ally of Iran" to "Syria is a crucial ally of Iran". 98.118.9.141 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Article name

The article name is misleading. There are allegation by Iran that the strike allegedly was done by Israel. However it was not confirmed. Let's not try to present biased assumption at the name of the article. We are not RT or Al Jazeera here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Change “embassy” to consulate. The building was annexed to the consulate not the embassy building. As per Hamas, “ On its Telegram channel, Hamas said Tehran was exercising its "natural right" and was carrying out "a deserved response to the crime of targeting the Iranian consulate in Damascus and assassinating a number of Revolutionary Guard leaders there." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna147738 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Renamed. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Indian reaction to incident

I request addition of India's reaction to the incident. cited news: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-concern-attack-iran-embassy-syria-9251595/ 110.235.217.42 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Legality

The page says... "According to Aurel Sari, a professor of international law at Exeter University in the United Kingdom..." and then states Sari suggests the strike was illegal. This quote came from a source that says experts largely agree the strike IS LEGAL under international law.

So while the citation is correct the addition to the page itself is misleading readers. Either remove the quote or include something that states that experts largly believe the strike is legal. MStern918 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Forget it. It's been extended protected. The biased ones are in charge now. 82.16.148.165 (talk) 82.16.148.165 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

UK response to the attack could be added

Moved: was at Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus

See statement to the UNSC from the UK ambassador.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-uk-is-deeply-concerned-about-the-potential-for-escalation-in-the-middle-east-and-calls-on-all-parties-to-reduce-tensions-uk-statement-at-the-un-s Scorchgider (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Consulate NOT embassy in title

Israel bombed an annexed building to the consulate NOT the embassy. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/2/attack-on-iran-consulate-in-damascus-what-do-we-know

change title to reflect facts 2600:1700:4410:9460:B4B8:1BAD:25C4:7362 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not done like that. You need to start a move request. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The rules explicitly state to begin in the talk and have a discussion before escalating to a move. 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
please direct me to the previous discussion in “talk” about the title. Thank you. Wordsmatter101 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I found the previous move request. Thank you and sorry for the confusion on my part. 2600:1700:4410:9460:781B:F543:D1D8:1AE2 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The Consulate is part of the Embassy complex so no, this is correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html Alex.Wajoe (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
“ Embassy – The diplomatic delegation from one country to another. Consulate – A building that supports the embassy in its host country. Mission – A diplomatic representation to an international organization. Mission also refers to an embassy or a consulate.” They are not the same thing. 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The citation you provide calls it an embassy complex that is synonymous to consulate not embassy. 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, current name has multiple serious issues such as stating allegation as fact (Israel was blamed by Iran, but it's not confirmed so such info should not be in the title) plus it's consulate and not embassy. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. Sorry for the errors in bringing up this request. I am new to this and the directions can be confusing for me. I don’t know how to delete the repeat request. Wordsmatter101 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Israel has acknowledged the attack. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. The consulate vs embassy rhetoric was covered as an issue in the previous RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Do I submit a new move request to have accurate language used in the title? Wordsmatter101 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Wordsmatter101: Both you and Oleg Yunakov seem to think that there's a chance of a consensus emerging in favour of a change, though my feeling from browsing the closed RM is that the arguments have already been presented. Maybe Mike Selinker, who was the uninvolved closer of the previous RM, might wish to comment if there's any point opening a new RM. Boud (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    The issue for me is the use of embassy. It is factually incorrect, it misleads (one of the tenets is neutrality) and the majority of posters in the original RM cite the use of consulate not embassy - not sure why the editor approved against the majority. Wordsmatter101 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you @Boud! Wordsmatter101 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    My predictions for Wikipedia RMs and RfCs are often wrong. Keeping that in mind, my guess is that a new RM would lead to no name change, but only trying it out can prove if my guess is right or wrong. Boud (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Oh really? And you can provide us reliable sources where Israel officially acknowledged the attack and not a few anonymous people from Israel's opposition trying to say on behalf of Israel? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I know there's no official confirmation from Israel. Instead there's confirmation from Israeli officials per the NYT: Four Israeli officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters, confirmed that Israel had been behind the strike in Damascus,...[1] I'm not aware of any sources sceptical of Israel being responsible for the attacks or proposing any alternative hypotheses. For titles, we go by WP:TITLE. Including Israeli in the title satisfies the naturalness and recognizability WP:CRITERIA: the media generally call this an Israeli attack and that's what people will look for. No alternative claims have appeared in the media, at least as far as I've noticed in search engine results and in the above discussions. Daesh does not have missiles or an air force, nor do the Taliban. US/UK/French forces are very unlikely to have risked the diplomatic uproar from destroying a consulate or the risk of escalating armed conflict in the region. In any case, my list of unlikely hypotheses in the previous two sentences does not count as a WP:RS. Boud (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support; the fact that the Consulate was in the same compound is a mere coincidence. There may be multiple consulates of the same country spread across the territory but only one embassy. Israel struck the Consulate which was the building next to. Now Iran opened a new Consulate in a different location. Nicola Romani (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support removing "Embassy". Oppose renaming it "Consulate". The nature of the building in question is disputed, and our article should clearly state that. I've seen no source acknowledging that dispute and definitively establishing that it was a diplomatic building, let alone the "Iranian Embassy" proper. Indeed, the source cited in our article for the claim that "two civilians" were killed clearly states, with emphasis mine: "The woman and her son lived on the fourth floor of the targeted four-storey building, the first two floors of which are rented by the embassy while the third is a home for the Iranian ambassador." Needless to say, embassies don't pay to rent floors of their own embassy building, neither to host military meetings nor for their ambassador's residence—and they certainly don't allow non-employees to use the embassy building as a residence. Even more damning, the source describes the 4-story structure as a "building attached to Iranian embassy"—quite clearly distinguishing it from the embassy itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekpyros (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before folks spend a lot of time typing supports and opposes, anything title-related should probably go through the requested move process, in a new talk page section, and WP:ARBECR should be enforced in the new talk page section. So this section might not be a good spot to discuss the title. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support removing "Embassy". Oppose renaming it "Consulate". From [13]: "the property had not been identified as a consulate like other Iranian diplomatic properties in Latakia and Aleppo, which had been officially identified in maps or in publications of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as consulates." and "the building consists of four floors, the first floor of which is occupied by the Iranians...there are also Iranians living on the second floor, while two Syrian families live on the third and fourth floors of the targeted building, and Iran had tried to buy them out or rent them, but their owners refused to sell them." Its clearly not the embassy. In addition, if you look at the photos, the fence goes around the embassy building and does not include the destroyed building. If it was part of the embassy complex then it would have been fenced in with it. Rented buildings that aren't part of the embassy complex aren't an embassy or a consulate --Swesham (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Swesham: You've quoted selectively from that source. It also says the buildings were connected and that two basement floors were used by the embassy. But more importantly, one source only has so much value and can only take you so far. Most sources call it either an embassy annex or consulate (regardless of the split usage of the structure). It's also fairly immaterial in terms of the Vienna convention, which protects all diplomatic premises. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    It is relevant when you consider that building was not marked as a consulate or had any consulate-identifying features. Just like how diplomatic pouches must have external marks identifying it as such to gain qualified immunity, a building or structure that has no marks as consulate cannot later claim to be a consulate after the fact. Had the fence extended around, it would be seen as a mark that it was part of the compound and de facto a part of the embassy. Had the building been owned by, not rented, and identified as a consulate in maps, then it would be de jure a consulate --Swesham (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    Unless you have a reliable source for all of this, it's original research. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Farnaz Fassihi; Ronen Bergman; Aaron Boxerman; Hiba Yazbek; Michael Levenson (1 April 2024). "3 Top Iranian Commanders Are Reported Killed in Israeli Strike in Syria". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Wikidata Q125472080. Archived from the original on 1 April 2024.

Page move(s)

Just noting that I have reverted this page back to its original title (minus the year) per the RM/TR request here. The naming of this article has been confused as the RM above didn't follow the usual process for WP:RMUM, which is that the article should have been reverted procedurally. However, given that the discussion above was "no consensus", other than the question of whether to remove the year, the status quo ante original title of Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus has been restored rather than the alternative proposed title of Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus.

As there has been a lot of confusion about this, and this was a purely procedural move reverting a previous bold move, I would not be opposed to a fresh RM within the near future starting from this title to ascertain if there actually is any consensus to move in some other direction. For now, the move protection remains in place and it should only be moved via a fresh RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. We have an RM with a clear, bolded outcome, and an article that is sysop move protected. The article should go to the title specified by the closer of the most recent RM (Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus) until there is a new RM or a move review. Would you be willing to self revert? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're confused, as I have explained the point of this above? The close on the RM said "The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR". Thus without any consensus, the article has been reverted to its prior title. The closer didn't say there was a consensus in favour of the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, only that there was a consensus to remove the year. In such scenarios, the lack of consensus is always taken to mean the article reverts to its original title, not that it retains whatever title it had at the start of the RM. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: OK, given the complete lack of clarity and the fact that the closer hasn't been back to respond to the points raised, I've self-reverted for the time being. I think before we can move forward with this, we really need some concrete answers to the confusion. Mike's close doesn't reference the fact that the original move to this title was a WP:RMUM, and that's a crucial detail in determining the right way forward.
@Mike Selinker: regarding your close above, please could you answer the following questions and maybe clarify these in the close?
  1. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, was the result of the RM discussion intended to be no consensus or was it intended to be consensus against a move? In this case this is a crucial detail, as the result of a no consensus would be to revert to the status quo ante, while consensus against would result in this title being retained.
  2. On a more precise point Mike, you mentioned that It's possible that "airstrike" is more precise but there isn't consensus to make that change. But again, this is framed the wrong way round. "Airstrike" was the original and default framing so if there isn't a consensus, then it should revert to that.
Once we have some clarity on these points, then either we can restore the status quo ante, or if in fact Mike says there was consensus against a move, then Billed Mammal and others can decide whether they wish to move to a move review. Cheers, and hopefully we'll be able to move forward constructively soon. In future it would be a good idea for discussions like the one above to be procedurally closed before they chew up so much editor time because it creates a lot of confusion!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Rather than wikilawyering the old close, or pursuing the move review option, it may be faster and also a more accurate gauge of consensus to just hold a new seven-day RM. Up to y'all though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I missed this conversation. When I closed it, I meant that there was no consensus for a change from the current title, other than removing the year. There seems to be general agreement in the media that Israel bombed the building. However, there is a reasonable statement above that it is a _consulate_ rather than an embassy, so I think it should be opened up for a rename discussion again to change "embassy" to "consulate."--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    Hi @Mike Selinker: thanks for getting back to us. If I understand you rightly then, you're saying that you saw a consensus not to move then, rather than that there was no consensus either way in the discussion? For the reasons I mentioned above, and per the WP:THREEOUTCOMES concept, this distinction is crucial here. The current title was arrived at via an undiscussed move, so it does not have the privelege of remaining the title automatically, unless a consensus in the RM determined that it should do so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    Based on their comment on their talk page, I think they’re saying that there was no consensus in general. BilledMammal (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    I definitely think you should open a new RM rather than debate my intent. There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except WP:NOYEAR. There is obviously considerable interest in reopening the discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Mike Selinker: you keep repeating that same line, without actually answering the question that's been asked multiple times. If it's no consensus, then it goes back to the original title, that's the rule. But if you saw a consensus against moving then it stays where it is. It's that simple. The reason we're debating you intent is because you haven't yet said what your intent was. Sorry to be blunt, but all we need from you is an answer so that editors can move on and/or consider the next steps for what to do here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus to make a change of any kind from 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus except to remove the year. There was specifically NOT consensus to move the page (back, as it might be) to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, and consensus was strong that that name was not what the community wanted. As an admin, I made the ruling to put the page at Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, regardless of previous naming of the page. Now, there is considerable interest in potentially renaming the page to something else. There should be an RM for a new name, which I fully support discussion on (and will not close). Does that answer your question? If not, state what you want my answer to be, and I will tell you whether I meant to do what you wanted or not. If you want the answer to be "move it to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus or Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, it was specifically NOT my intent to do that. If the consensus is to want that to be the result of my no-consensus close, though, then an admin should overrule me and move the page to that title. I am totally fine with that result. What I hope we can stop doing is wikilawyering this to be a referendum on my actions and get about to a new RM for a name on which people can find consensus. (Especially on the issue of embassy vs. consulate.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

Suggest minor change

change:

this likely means that the embassy was a legitimate target

to:

this probably means that the embassy was a legitimate target

Reason: "likely" is an adjective and not an adverb. Although frequently used as though it were an adverb, owing to the presence of the letters l and y, "likely" is only an adjective. The sentence as it stands is therefore grammatically incorrect. YorickJenkins (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, likely can be used as an adverb. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Date error

"On 13 April 2014, the IRGC Navy boarded the Portuguese container ship MSC Aries"

Should say 2024. Shouldn't be a controversial fix, already has the right date on the linked wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_seizure_of_the_MSC_Aries


I think this is the right place to post suggested edits, but my apologies if not. 68.196.246.4 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing! :) --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Corroborating a Claim made in One Source

Hi,

I just want to flag this. I read the SOHR articles (sources 4 & 5); it mentions 2 civilians were killed. I could only find one other article mentioning killed civilians. I also read an AP article, a BBC article, a Guardian article, an Al-Jazeera article, and a CNN article and none of these articles mention dead civilians (the AJ article says all the victims were combatants).

I understand source 5 (SOHR) was published on April 3rd. The one other article that mentions killed civilians, an F24 article, from April 3rd cites the SOHR figure. All of the other articles are from April 1st, but many were updated on April 2nd. Why haven't other news sources updated their reports since April 3rd? If we cannot find sources to corroborate the claims of the SOHR, should the claim be taken down? Or is sufficient that F24 republished the fact from the SOHR? What is the standard here?

Thank you,

HABH_8128 Helpandbehelped 8218 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Telepolis

@ZxxZxxZ: In this edit you added a paragraph attributed to Telepolis; however, Telepolis does not appear to be a reliable source, instead frequently publishing conspiracy theories. Do we have a reliable source comparing it to the 1999 bombing? BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Source falsification

However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.[1]

The source states:

There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal; a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces called the annexe that was destroyed a “military building [...] disguised as a civilian building”. Iran may try to claim, falsely, that the same is true of Israeli embassies, and that attacks on them would be similarly justified.(Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable? The Economist 9 April 2024)

  1. ^ "Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable?". The Economist. Retrieved 18 April 2024.

This looks to me like a palmary case of source falsification. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(2) We had:-

The US State Department states that "An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents".

The source for this was

U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, as well as foreign countries’ embassies and consulates in the United States, have a special status. While the host government is responsible for the security of U.S. diplomats and the area around an embassy, the embassy itself belongs to the country it represents. Representatives of the host country cannot enter an embassy without permission. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. is a U.S. Embassy? US State Department

This was removed by Billed Mammal as WP:Synth.

I.e. a direct verbatim citation from the source is expunged as the combination of two separate sources (synthesis), which is impossible here.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding (1), you've bolded the wrong part of the Economist quote:

There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal; a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces called the annexe that was destroyed a “military building [...] disguised as a civilian building”. Iran may try to claim, falsely, that the same is true of Israeli embassies, and that attacks on them would be similarly justified.

The New York Times, the second source there, says the same thing:

But while those rules of diplomatic relations are a bedrock principle of international law, they actually have little force in the case of the Damascus bombing, experts say, because they only refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” — in this case, Syria — and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.

I believe the two sources are more than sufficient to support the line However, these obligations do not apply to third parties, such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria.
Regarding (2), it's WP:SYNTH because it implies a conclusion not stated by the source, that the US has stated that this is considered an attack on Iran. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding 2 you are wrong. It does not imply a conclusion, but states a principle. That principle was in, precisely, the very source you introduced, the Economist, which stated:

America’s State Department considers an attack on one of its embassies to be an attack on America itself.

So, having read the Economist, fully aware that it paraphrases what the State Department article states, you removed the State Department version. So that is a deliberate expunging of a statement you cannot but know existed in the source you yourself use, on the spurious grounds that it implies something. Factual statement do not imply conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
It does both. It states a principle, and because of the context ("Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus") also implies a conclusion.
The Economist article doesn't imply that conclusion; the statements about the airstrike and the US embassies are in different contexts. BilledMammal (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is waffle. You cannot show where in either source we can find support to assert the combination as a fact (wikivoice) that '(a) these obligations do not apply to third parties, (bh) such as Israel in the case of an Iranian embassy in Syria].' That is an Israeli/pro-Israeli POV. not a fact, easily shown to be a POV by any number of other sources eg.

Of the two recent incidents, the Iranian embassy bombing is the more serious, as it involved the loss of life and resulted in warnings of retaliatory attacks.

Yet, Western countries, leaders of which often voice concern over upholding the so-called “rules-based order,” have been reluctant to condemn the act. It was notable that the three liberal democracies on the U.N. Security Council – the United States, the United Kingdom and France – all refused to condemn the strike on Iran’s embassy when the issue came up before them. Israel, while not officially acknowledging responsibility, argued that the Iranian ambassador’s residence was not really a diplomatic venue but “a military building … disguised as a civilian building.” As such, to Israel it was a perfectly legitimate target. But by this logic, nearly all embassies would be seen as fair game. Almost by definition, the vast majority of embassies – particularly of the larger countries – are populated with significant numbers of military and intelligence personnel. To suggest that for that reason embassies should lose their diplomatic immunity and become legitimate targets for armed attacks would bring the whole edifice of the Vienna Convention crashing down. And with it would come the structure on which worldwide formal diplomatic interactions are based.' Jorge Heine Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest otherwise − and that sets a dangerous diplomatic precedent The Conversation 9 April 2024

You are taken pro-Israeli defenses of the attack as factual, in short, and eliminating from the article evidence that suggests the contrary. Source distortion, in short.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I think do not apply to third parties is a reasonable paraphrasing of only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack and refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.
However, to address your concerns I've aligned the wording more closely with the sources; the meaning is unchanged, but it should be clearer now that the article is saying the same thing as the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
No you haven't addressed my concerns at all, but sidestepped them. You engaged in a WP:Synth abuse (while decrying the same in a sentence that is not a synthesis) by uniting two separate opinions from the NYTs and the Economist to assert in wiki's voice that an opinion is a fact. There is no remedy for that kind of sequential distortion other than a revert to the text before you edited it.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The two sources say the same thing - I can't see why you believe it's WP:SYNTH. In addition, neither of them are opinion articles. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems like you're conflating two issues,
  1. whether international laws relating to consular protections apply to third-party states
  2. whether consular buildings can become legitimate targets based on military use
I thought we were discussing (1), but your quote from The Conversation seems to be about (2)?
I'm also not clear on what you mean by source falsification or distortion. That sounds like a claim that the text doesn't faithfully match the source? But you didn't really explain why, and later you seem to argue that the source itself is biased. Overall I'm unclear on what your argument is. XDanielx (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the State Department quote, it's not cut-and-dry, but I do think it goes against WP:SYNTH, which says "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".
The question becomes whether our use of the quote implies a conclusion about the legality of the strike (or the US' position thereon). I would say it does, based on the context in which it's included. At the very least, we're implying that there's some kind of applicability to the topic at hand, which the source doesn't do.
One could argue that the conclusion is so obvious that it's a trivial case of OR, but I don't think it is. For one thing, the quote says "embassy", raising questions about whether it applies to this building. The quote also seems like informal web content, not attributed to any particular official or spokesperson, and not dated, so it's not entirely obvious whether it closely reflects an official position of the current administration.
Has the US taken any explicit position on the legality of this particular strike? If so, that would seem much more appropriate to include here. XDanielx (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Opened move review. See discussion at WP:RMTR, where there is a consensus that a new RM before we resolve the question of what the status quo with only muddy the waters, and that a move review is more appropriate - I will open that shortly. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Galamore (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus – The usage of consulate is more WP:PRECISE, and better follows various sources that use the same or similar phrasing.

  • NPR: "Iran said Monday that Israel killed two of its generals and several others in an airstrike on the Iranian consulate in the Syrian capital Damascus"[1]
  • AP News: "Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate in Syria killed 2 generals and 5 other officers, Iran says"[2]
  • The Guardian: "Why Israel’s attack on Iranian consulate in Syria was a gamechanger"[3]
  • CNN: "Iran vows revenge as it accuses Israel of deadly airstrike on Syria consulate in deepening Middle East crisis." [4]
  • BBC: "Iran's Revolutionary Guards say seven officers have been killed in an Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate building in Syria's capital, Damascus."[5]
  • Jerusalem Post: "Bloomberg reported Israel's attack on Iran's consulate in Syria, killing Revolutionary Guards' command, prompting Iran to suspect Syria's involvement in previous assassinations."[6]
  • Al Jazeera: "How will Iran respond to Israel’s attack on its Damascus consulate?"[7]

Galamore (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Iranian officials accuse Israel of a deadly attack on Iran's consulate in Syria".
  2. ^ "Israeli strike on Iran's consulate in Syria killed 2 generals and 5 other officers, Iran says".
  3. ^ "Why Israel's attack on Iranian consulate in Syria was a gamechanger".
  4. ^ "Iran vows revenge as it accuses Israel of deadly airstrike on Syria consulate in deepening Middle East crisis".
  5. ^ "Iran accuses Israel of killing generals in Syria strike".
  6. ^ "Entire IRGC command wing in Syria was eliminated in strike, Bloomberg reveals".
  7. ^ "How will Iran respond to Israel's attack on its Damascus consulate?".
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move review under way

So, BilledMammal, unhappy with the outcome of the recent move discussion, has requested a move review here:

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_April#Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus

Interested editors are welcome to comment. — kashmīrī TALK 00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Why the title is bombing of Iranian embassy and not consulate?

I think the title confuses the reader, and should be changed. 46.121.27.53 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it was not a consulate. — kashmīrī TALK 22:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
False, the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own [14][15]. The current title is wrong and misleading moreover failing to comply with WP:PRECISE. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Consulate = formally, the consular section of an embassy irrespective of its location; more commonly, consulate = consular office away from the main embassy.[16] Here, the attack was on the diplomatic complex housing the embassy with all its sections. — kashmīrī TALK 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk page archive

This page is being archived. Surely there should be a link from this page to the archive, but I can't find it. Nurg (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed with Template:Talk header. SilverLocust 💬 05:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Auto-archiving period was too short IMO – 5 days. Given the lengthy discussions editors have here, ones that span multiple sections, I've unarchived the two most recent threads and increased the auto-archive period to 1 month. — kashmīrī TALK 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Image deletion request

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus.jpg --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Iranian_consulate_in_Damascus/Archive_1&oldid=1258039321"